timbop wrote in post #16924216
If you don't care about FL, then I am not sure you understand the principle. A 200 f/2 will give you far thinner depth of field (ie blurry foreground/background) than a 24/1.4 - unless you shoot the 24 from a foot from your subject.
If you just want the ability to creat a thin slice of focus with the rest blurry, you could look into tilt-shift lenses or even lensbabies for far less than the lenses with wider than f/1.2
I have a tilt shift lens and also a lensbaby, i also have 135 f2L, also 50 1.4, so i know those all can give that so thin or extreme bokeh, but it is just another thing, like to have something more than to use or need, so i wanted to have a lens that has f1.2 or wider, not necessary for very thin DoF, and i think sometimes if you have a lens with f1.2 it may be better at f1.4 than a lens of 1.4 at 1.4, not always using wide open give best quality, so if i have something like f1 or f1.2 lens then i can stop down to 1.4 and have better IQ, not necessary it is a fact always, but why not getting that lens, i like to try many options and i still don't have one lens with f1.2 or wider.
